Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo - 7/25/2009 8:43:46 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: xBullx

It's just that your motives and talking points appear so, corrupted, slanted, bias and politically skewed it appears you don't look at subject matter objectively, even to the extent you try and discredit good ideas and views of the opposition, whether they'd be beneficial or not. You are always bringing negative attacks against Bush, Palin or anyone you politically dislike back into the center of conversation to serve as an excuse or distraction and it's growing old; old to the point that when you are justified in resurrecting past indiscretions against your politically contemptuous it rings repetitive, hollow and meaningless.




You're absolutely right Bull.

I am about as biased and partisan as they come, and you know what, that ain't gonna change.

I was actually a Reagan supporter at one point and considered myself an independent.  I even thought, and still do, that Bush Sr. did a decent job.

Then I watched a Republican Congress waste eight years and millions of tax dollars trying to to dig up any dirt they could on Clinton, because they were unable to attack him on his policies, because his policies were working.

Then I watched Bush & Co. spend eight years trampling all over the Constitution.

So yeah, you are damn right that when I see new evidence of that come to light I'm going to be posting it and telling everyone who will listen about it.  Because I don't want to see it happen again.

(in reply to xBullx)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo - 7/25/2009 8:45:33 AM   
Starbuck09


Posts: 724
Joined: 6/7/2009
Status: offline 		Rulemylife is it not possible though that this was a legitimate and rational debate had by the president and his advisors for the reasons I have outlined?

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo - 7/25/2009 8:49:44 AM   
TurboJugend


Posts: 481
Joined: 6/15/2009
Status: offline
quote:

Using Army troops in a domestic situation!


perhaps offtopic
As a non USA citizen I find it weird to read that many find it normal to send the army to foreign countries for what ever reason....but complain when they protect your own country?
Or do I misread?

(in reply to Starbuck09)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo - 7/25/2009 8:52:08 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline 		If I get arrested for something will I be able to go before a judge and say "Your honor, that's a really old law that I broke and surely you can make an exception for me because of the exceptional circumstances that forced me to break that law"?

(in reply to Starbuck09)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo - 7/25/2009 8:57:37 AM   
Starbuck09


Posts: 724
Joined: 6/7/2009
Status: offline 		 No that's not what i'm saying. Murder theft e.t.c. were things that those who wrote the constitution had to deal with and so they made provision for it. The conventional, chemical, biological and nuclear explosives of today are not something they had any knowledge of ans so correspondingly there is nothing in the constitution that covers situations in which their deployment [or the threat of such] needs to be dealt with. In this particular situation military e.o.d. teams are both better equipped and trained plus they will be for the most part vastly more experienced. In Britain there is some osmosis between AT operators and the metropolitan police [SO13] but it is still the military teams that are ideal.

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo - 7/25/2009 9:02:10 AM   
xBullx


Posts: 4206
Joined: 10/8/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: xBullx

It's just that your motives and talking points appear so, corrupted, slanted, bias and politically skewed it appears you don't look at subject matter objectively, even to the extent you try and discredit good ideas and views of the opposition, whether they'd be beneficial or not. You are always bringing negative attacks against Bush, Palin or anyone you politically dislike back into the center of conversation to serve as an excuse or distraction and it's growing old; old to the point that when you are justified in resurrecting past indiscretions against your politically contemptuous it rings repetitive, hollow and meaningless.




You're absolutely right Bull.

I am about as biased and partisan as they come, and you know what, that ain't gonna change.

I was actually a Reagan supporter at one point and considered myself an independent.  I even thought, and still do, that Bush Sr. did a decent job.

Then I watched a Republican Congress waste eight years and millions of tax dollars trying to to dig up any dirt they could on Clinton, because they were unable to attack him on his policies, because his policies were working.

Then I watched Bush & Co. spend eight years trampling all over the Constitution.

So yeah, you are damn right that when I see new evidence of that come to light I'm going to be posting it and telling everyone who will listen about it.  Because I don't want to see it happen again.




ok then.......................... 

_____________________________

Live well,

Bull



I'm not an asshole; I'm simply resolute...

"A Republic, If You Can Keep It."

Caution: My humor is a bit skewed.

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo - 7/25/2009 9:02:45 AM   
MarsBonfire


Posts: 1034
Joined: 3/6/2005
Status: offline 		The reason to keep uncovering this shit, and talking about it, is because with each passing election cycle, it's important to remember which party was willing to sell every single value of the US Constitution down the river. Which one used the terrorist attacks of 9-11-01 as an excuse for grabbing as much power into the fewest hands as possible. Which one wanted to turn the US into a defacto dictatorship.

Pretty simple, really.

And I'm sure this is going to be just one of hundreds of similar examples of the Cheany/Bush regime thinking about fucking us all over that will come to light in the coming years.

Get used to it.

(in reply to Starbuck09)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo - 7/25/2009 9:20:03 AM   
xBullx


Posts: 4206
Joined: 10/8/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MarsBonfire

The reason to keep uncovering this shit, and talking about it, is because with each passing election cycle, it's important to remember which party was willing to sell every single value of the US Constitution down the river. Which one used the terrorist attacks of 9-11-01 as an excuse for grabbing as much power into the fewest hands as possible. Which one wanted to turn the US into a defacto dictatorship.

Pretty simple, really.

And I'm sure this is going to be just one of hundreds of similar examples of the Cheany/Bush regime thinking about fucking us all over that will come to light in the coming years.

Get used to it.


I don't speak for anyone but myself, but utilizing the bit of sense I possess, it bears saying that for those of us that don't trust or side with either of these corrupted parties, your commments and credibility have fallen to rest in league with those of Rule.

But unlike Rule's comments that sometime have social pupose, I find virtually nothing but predjudicial, mean spirited and hateful badgering in your posts, no matter the subject.

I would venture to say that it has been a lifetime since you met someone that was more informed or wiser on any given subject than you find yourself to be. But that's just a subjectively formed opinion.

There now you got to be included.............Happy?

By the way....You do know how to tell a politician is lying don't you? Yeah, his lips are moving.... Ahhhhhh, bi-partisanship

_____________________________

Live well,

Bull



I'm not an asshole; I'm simply resolute...

"A Republic, If You Can Keep It."

Caution: My humor is a bit skewed.

(in reply to MarsBonfire)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo - 7/25/2009 9:22:13 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Starbuck09

Rulemylife is it not possible though that this was a legitimate and rational debate had by the president and his advisors for the reasons I have outlined?



The section of the Constitution I linked to below is generally interpreted to mean that only the individual states can ask for the help of the U.S. military.  The federal government cannot arbitrarily make the decision to send military forces into those states.

The second link details the prohibition against using military forces in a law enforcement capacity.


FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article IV

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.



Posse Comitatus Act - Definition of the Posse Comitatus Act


The text of the Posse Comitatus Act, which is still in effect (as 18 U.S.C. Section 1385), reads:[Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Today, the Posse Comitatus Act has taken on a very different meaning from the one that it had in 1878. No longer associated with Reconstruction, it is a useful way to prevent the U.S. armed forces from directing their efforts against U.S. dissident groups. Public sentiment in favor of the Posse Comitatus Act is so strong that a 2006 law permitting an exception to the Act in cases of public disasters (in response to Hurricane Katrina) was repealed a year later.






< Message edited by rulemylife -- 7/25/2009 9:24:21 AM >

(in reply to Starbuck09)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo - 7/25/2009 9:39:18 AM   
ThatDamnedPanda


Posts: 6060
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TurboJugend

quote:

Using Army troops in a domestic situation!


perhaps offtopic
As a non USA citizen I find it weird to read that many find it normal to send the army to foreign countries for what ever reason....but complain when they protect your own country?
Or do I misread?


No, you're reading correctly. The way our government is set up, one of the most important principles is that there be a clear separation of powers between the 3 main branches of government. The theory is, this will make it difficult for any 1 branch to become more powerful than the other 2, because the separation of powers will act as a series of checks and balances between the 3 branches. One example of this separation is that the military (which is under the control of the executive branch of government) is not supposed to have any role in domestic law enforcement (which is the responsibility of the judicial branch).

In this case, the debate comes down to whether fighting domestic terrorists is a criminal matter (falling under the jurisdiction of the Justice Department), or a military matter (thus the responsibility of the executive branch, or the President). Some of the President's advisors, including the Vice President, were urging him to declare it a military issue (at least, in this specific instance), which would have the effect of expanding the powers of the presidency. For some inexplicable reason, Bush did the right thing in this case, and decided that it was, indeed, a criminal matter rather than a military one.


_____________________________

Panda, panda, burning bright
In the forest of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Made you all black and white and roly-poly like that?


(in reply to TurboJugend)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo - 7/25/2009 9:45:21 AM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Starbuck09

Rulemylife is it not possible though that this was a legitimate and rational debate had by the president and his advisors for the reasons I have outlined?


Of course it was. I knew as soon as I read the story who on this board would rant and rave about it. The fact is that all kinds of things are "considered" and their legality investigated. Its no different than the military having plans for invading every fucking country in the world, including Canada, if it became necessary. "Considering" doesnt mean jackshit.

(in reply to Starbuck09)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo - 7/25/2009 9:47:26 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Starbuck09

Domken what if the situation was deemed too dangerous for law enforcement though? Surely in such a case a military response is justified if they have a better chance of saving lives? I would be interested to know what units the president was debating sending.

Too dangerous for law enforcement? Our laws simply make no allowance that someone, short of rebellion or insurection, is too dangerous to arrest.

Note that once the suspects were arrested the agencies involved could have brought in military bomb disposal units if that was called for. That isn't law enforcement. But special forces operators couldn't be the ones putting cuffs on the suspects.

We simply do not allow the intermingling of our military and police in the way it is frequently seen elsewhere. It is a result of the events leading up to the Revolution reinforced by the experience of Reconstruction.

(in reply to Starbuck09)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo - 7/25/2009 10:05:14 AM   
ThatDamnedPanda


Posts: 6060
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Starbuck09

Surely those who drew up the constitution would have not wanted people to adhere to it simply because it was there. It has been a long time since the constitution was drafted and while much/most of it is still applicable to the every day lives of Americans there are now some situations that the creators of the constitution did not make provision for as they were not applicable in that time period. This appears to be a situation where the rulings of the constitution could end up doing far more harm than good. This was obviously an exceptional circumstance and for exceptional circumstances exceptions must be made.


You're making very sensible arguments, but the Constitution is still the Constitution. I know it doesn't always seem rational, but for some of us (like me), the Constitution is almost literally a sacred document. The longterm survival and integrity of the Constitution is far more important to me than almost any short term crisis. Yes, certain exceptional circumstances (such as the genuine possibility of an imminent  terrorist attack using nuclear weapons or large-scale bioweapons, for example), would have to be considered on a case by case basis, but generally speaking - as cold as this may sound - preserving the Constitution is more important to me than saving the lives of a few, or even a few hundred, citizens. Frankly, probably even a few thousand. And yes, before someone's knee jerks, I understand that I'm saying that as one of the people who's life is just as much at risk from a terrorist attack as anyone else's.

Fortunately, though, this theoretical exercise rarely manifests itself as an actual practical matter. As it happens, the Constitution's framework has more than enough flexibility built into it to allow for almost any contingency. As was the case in this matter, because it really wasn't that exceptional a circumstance at all. And also, keep in mind that one of the flexibilities built into the Constitution is the option of amending the document itself as times change.

< Message edited by ThatDamnedPanda -- 7/25/2009 10:06:39 AM >

_____________________________

Panda, panda, burning bright
In the forest of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Made you all black and white and roly-poly like that?


(in reply to Starbuck09)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo - 7/25/2009 10:07:42 AM   
servantforuse


Posts: 6363
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline 		They should done it. They would all be sitting in Gitmo with the rest of the terrorists...

(in reply to ThatDamnedPanda)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: HI ADD ME AT aliciadelacroix****yahoo.com - 7/25/2009 10:15:38 AM   
Starbuck09


Posts: 724
Joined: 6/7/2009
Status: offline 		DomKen I understand that no-one is deemed too dangerous for law enforcement to handle with the exceptions you've noted but in this case it is not the people that are dangerous but the equipment they may posess. In Britain there was a long history of similar situations with the I.R.A. where criminals had access to ordinance that the police were not fully trained to handle. In these situations [and these alone] jurisdiction was handed from law enforcement to the military, usually Felix. The reason is simply because in these very specific and exceptional cases the police were not as effective as the military and lives were on the line. If the house was booby trapped then sending in the police could lead to disastrous consequences both to the officers involved and the general public. I understand the desire to adhere to the constitution, really I do. However I am sure that those who wrote it would want people to think for themselves not simply follow the laws they laid down and if necessary make ammendments. These are difficult times and we need to fit them. I think there is a legitimate reason here for debate and I think president Bush was actually wise to have it. In this instance he decided it was not the right thing to do, but I think the debate itself is something healthy.

(in reply to sirsholly)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: HI ADD ME AT aliciadelacroix****yahoo.com - 7/25/2009 10:22:53 AM   
Starbuck09


Posts: 724
Joined: 6/7/2009
Status: offline 		Well that's fair enough Panda more power to you, I think it's good to have strong beliefs and to recognize the down sides as well as the positives. I also understand that living in Britian it is harder to understand the utter sanctity of the constitution but I think it's a valid position whether I agree with it or not. I'm afraid I don't know a huge amount about how the constitution works with regards to being ammended. At the risk of sounding like a complete ignoramus is it at least conceivable that in a situation like this that an e.o.d. team could be deputised for the duration of the arrest to provide support and that it would still be only bona fide officers who placed the cuffs on the suspects?

(in reply to Starbuck09)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo - 7/25/2009 10:25:12 AM   
DarkSteven


Posts: 28072
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline 		Panda, your views mirror mine very well, and you express yourself well.  I'll just kick back and let you represent me.

_____________________________

"You women....

The small-breasted ones want larger breasts. The large-breasted ones want smaller ones. The straight-haired ones curl their hair, and the curly-haired ones straighten theirs...

Quit fretting. We men love you."

(in reply to servantforuse)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: HI ADD ME AT aliciadelacroix****yahoo.com - 7/25/2009 10:25:46 AM   
Starbuck09


Posts: 724
Joined: 6/7/2009
Status: offline 		Rule I understand that use of the military is prohibited in the parts of the constitution you outlined for me but surely the debate itself is worth having even if nothing comes of it? If Bush had decided to use the military then he could have been judged by the public having given his reasons and either be applauded or ousted by the ballot box or impeachment.

(in reply to Starbuck09)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: HI ADD ME AT [email protected] - 7/25/2009 10:26:37 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sweetalicia

hi i am a cam girl help me plzz i am too horny right now plzz


Can anyone please help this poor girl?

Now I know we have our differences here, but surely someone is charitable enough to help her out with her problem.

(in reply to sweetalicia)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo - 7/25/2009 10:35:25 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


Of course it was. I knew as soon as I read the story who on this board would rant and rave about it. The fact is that all kinds of things are "considered" and their legality investigated. Its no different than the military having plans for invading every fucking country in the world, including Canada, if it became necessary. "Considering" doesnt mean jackshit.


The only problem is these types of legal discussions about things that were clearly illegal came up often in the Bush White House.

And many of those discussions turned into contortions of the law that resulted in this country establishing policies that have eroded our standing in the international community.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094